a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities

[David Monniaux-2]

Since its foundation, the French chapter has attempted to reach out to
French cultural institutions, such as museums, and incite them to either
put their images under free licenses, either allow photographers that
contribute freely licensed pictures to take photographs in good conditions.

At first, to be frank, we got the cold shoulder. At the time, Wikipedia
was demonized by the French media, calling it a cesspool of amateurism,
plagiarism, a danger to the youth's intellect, and so on. In addition,
certain members of the cultural establishment were at the time attacking
Google and other big American sites, pushing their own solutions.

Things might be changing though. In 2008, I represented Wikimedia France
before a commission tasked with proposing new policies to the Minister
of Culture regarding the reuse of public cultural works. The Ministry of
Culture is in charge of most national museums and monuments (e.g. the
Louvre, the Versailles Castle...) and its agencies have large
collections of photographs - but these are copyrighted by the agencies
and available under unfree licenses.

Our position was as follows: unfree licenses may in the short term allow
cash-strapped government agencies to earn some money from selling
photographs to publishers, but in the long run they are
counter-productive, because media, publishers and important sites such
as Wikipedia, worldwide, prefer free and easy to obtain photographs to
photographs that they need to purchase from unfamiliar foreign
institutions, and thus French cultural institutions would lose visibility.

We gave the example of aerospace activities on Wikipedia, which are
overwhelmingly illustrated by US government pictures, which somehow
convey the impression that countries outside the US do nothing in this
field. We pointed out that museums such as the Smithsonian Institution
were putting up content on FlickR, and that it was inevitable that
publishers and other people that want an illustration from an artist
would prefer getting one from FlickR rather than ordering one from the
French museums. In contrast, if French museums would release pictures
under a free license, they would get free publicity - imagine what it
would cost them if they wanted to advertise their exhibitions on
Wikipedia (if Wikipedia accepted advertisements), whereas they can get
publicity for free simply by the attribution of the photographs!

Note that it is not out of ill will that museums and other institutions
refuse to release pictures under a free license. There are some legal
difficulties involved - sometimes they do not own the rights to the
pictures (only in 2006 it was established for sure that rights to works
done by civil servants as part of their duties belonged to their
employer; also, they sometimes employ private photographers), and
besides, there are tricky issues with so-called "moral rights" that may
render certain aspects of free content licenses illegal in France. Also,
public institutions are pressured to make some money by themselves.

I had written a memo, which I gave to the commission.
http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/Wikimedia_France_Monniaux_oeuvres_publiques.pdf

This August, I received the report from the commission, with an
associated letter from the Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterrand,
stating that he endorsed the findings in the report. This report
advocates many changes that we approve:
* stop trying to make insignificant sums of money - instead release as free
* cut the red tape - authorizations for reuse of content should be
centralized to competent, professional services, rather than be
decentralized to many institutions most of whom do not have the
technical, legal and financial infrastructure to deal with them
* collaborate with free content sites such as Wikipedia - more on this.
http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/rapport_culture.pdf (scanned version)
http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/rapport_culture_ocr.pdf (OCR version)

The cultural services are reluctant to release pictures under free
licenses. When I met them, they expected that it would be possible to
"negotiate" with Wikipedia and get an exemption from this requirement. I
explained to them that freedom was not negotiable. It was, I think, very
surprising to them that Wikipedia, an amateurish organization, would
dare say that to the Government!

I proposed a way out: release lower resolution pictures under free
license, keep high resolution pictures (those suitable for art books,
posters and so on) proprietary. The suggestion has been retained by the
commission - even though they still seem to toy with this idea of
"negotiation".

In the meantime, the National Library of France (www.bnf.fr) announced
it was entering negotiations with Google for digitizing their content.
This would announce a sharp change in policies since when Jean-Noël
Jeanneney was head of the library - Jeanneney had written a book
denouncing Google's hold on the world.

I seized the occasion to make our point of view heard. On Wednesday
September 16, I published in op-ed column in the national daily
Libération, explaining that our cultural policies on were
counterproductive - rather than fight the "American cultural invasion"
as their proponents suggest, they actually reinforce this invasion by
making French content invisible on the Web - because it is kept proprietary.

*** This is, I think, the first time such ideas were exposed in the
mainstream media. ***

Since the report called for renewed contacts between the Ministry and
free content sites, I wrote to them thanking the Minister for sending
the report and telling them that we are at his disposal for further
discussion with his services.

We are trying to keep up the "buzz" on these issues - see the Heritage
Day email.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[David Monniaux-2]

Just to avoid misconceptions:

I do not expect that anything will change soon in the policies of French
cultural institutions. It is extremely difficult to change the policies
of large, traditional organizations unless there is a strong political
will to do so - and I do not think that putting up free content online
is a national priority.

My foremost goal is to get the ideas of free content and free access
across, to the common public and to the people in charge.

This is not so easy, because there are many misconceptions about what
Wikipedia is about. For instance, contrary to what is often implied by
the media, Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where anybody can do anything
anytime - but many people believe it and thus are horrified by such a
pandemonium, and because of this, they simply won't listen to what we
say. Simply overcoming such misinformation is already considerable work.
It took us years to be considered respectable enough to be heard by
officials, and to get a short op-ed printed in the press. This means
that in the meantime, myself and others (Florence Devouard, Pierre
Beaudouin, and so on) had to go to many meetings, whose outcome many
often just have been that people that did not know us would then see
that we are not dangerous anarchist teenagers or raving idealists, but
sensible, responsible folks.


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[David Monniaux-2]

Of special relevance to us is this section of the report:

Second recommendation

Lift the obstacles to the presence of French data on collaborative sites

Context

The Internet has changed because of the development of a multitude of
personal sites, as well as a new generation of platforms and services
whose content is provided by “communities”, some of which have become
powerful international industries. Thus, the sites Wikipedia around the
world welcome a total of 240 million unique visitors a month and the
site in French 10 million unique visitors a month. The articles on these
sites on topics related to France are currently illustrated by amateur
photographs, or photographs from foreign collections.

Arguments

When an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia needs photographs of
Egyptian antiquities in order to get illustrations for its articles, it
calls a museum. For the Louvre, accepting to donate its photographs
would significantly augment their exposure to the world and, thus, the
visibility of the museum as opposed to, say, the British Museum or the
Cairo Museum. All the more, the presentation of paintings or drawings of
Ingres on a site with such a high number of visitors would be positive
for the museum of Montauban.

The presence of public cultural data on community-run platforms would
augment their visibility and that of the public organizations that
provided them, both nationally and internationally.

Nevertheless, some legal obstacles currently hinder agreements with
these platforms. Indeed, because these sites are mostly constituted of
texts written and posted by private individuals, they propose so-called
“free” licenses which are in certain respects incompatible with current
French intellectual property law : no royalties for right holders,
indefinite rights of reuse, incompatibility with certain moral rights.
Therefore, a common ground should be reached so that these legal
difficulties are not insurmontable.

Conditions for fulfilling this recommendation

Elaborate and implement a specific reflection that would take into
account the forces of the parties, the potential gains for visibility of
the data and public cultural institutions, and the legal obstacles of
the exposition of our public data on collaborative sites. Such an
agreement would evidently include restrictions on the resolution of
photographs or videos put online and the obligation to create links,
which could maximize the flow of visits and income to the donating
institutions and the distribution pole considered (RMN, INA, etc.).

[Note of translator: the report suggests centralizing the currently
dispersed system for licensing of public works on a few number of poles,
such as the Reunion of national museums (RMN; museum photographs) and
the National audiovisual institute (television archives).]


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Nathan Awrich]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@...> wrote:

> Of special relevance to us is this section of the report:
>
> Second recommendation
>
> Lift the obstacles to the presence of French data on collaborative sites
>
> Context
>
> The Internet has changed because of the development of a multitude of
> personal sites, as well as a new generation of platforms and services
> whose content is provided by “communities”, some of which have become
> powerful international industries. Thus, the sites Wikipedia around the
> world welcome a total of 240 million unique visitors a month and the
> site in French 10 million unique visitors a month. The articles on these
> sites on topics related to France are currently illustrated by amateur
> photographs, or photographs from foreign collections.
>
> Arguments
>
> When an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia needs photographs of
> Egyptian antiquities in order to get illustrations for its articles, it
> calls a museum. For the Louvre, accepting to donate its photographs
> would significantly augment their exposure to the world and, thus, the
> visibility of the museum as opposed to, say, the British Museum or the
> Cairo Museum. All the more, the presentation of paintings or drawings of
> Ingres on a site with such a high number of visitors would be positive
> for the museum of Montauban.
>
> The presence of public cultural data on community-run platforms would
> augment their visibility and that of the public organizations that
> provided them, both nationally and internationally.
>
> Nevertheless, some legal obstacles currently hinder agreements with
> these platforms. Indeed, because these sites are mostly constituted of
> texts written and posted by private individuals, they propose so-called
> “free” licenses which are in certain respects incompatible with current
> French intellectual property law : no royalties for right holders,
> indefinite rights of reuse, incompatibility with certain moral rights.
> Therefore, a common ground should be reached so that these legal
> difficulties are not insurmontable.
>
> Conditions for fulfilling this recommendation
>
> Elaborate and implement a specific reflection that would take into
> account the forces of the parties, the potential gains for visibility of
> the data and public cultural institutions, and the legal obstacles of
> the exposition of our public data on collaborative sites. Such an
> agreement would evidently include restrictions on the resolution of
> photographs or videos put online and the obligation to create links,
> which could maximize the flow of visits and income to the donating
> institutions and the distribution pole considered (RMN, INA, etc.).
>
> [Note of translator: the report suggests centralizing the currently
> dispersed system for licensing of public works on a few number of poles,
> such as the Reunion of national museums (RMN; museum photographs) and
> the National audiovisual institute (television archives).]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@...
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

Great news, David. Just so I'm sure I understand, the above is the
official report to the Culture Minister that he adopted? And the
report mentions Wikipedia twice in the second section? If so, awesome
work.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[David Monniaux-2]

Nathan wrote:
> Great news, David. Just so I'm sure I understand, the above is the
> official report to the Culture Minister that he adopted? And the
> report mentions Wikipedia twice in the second section? If so, awesome
> work.
This is the official report, second recommendation.

Note that they think of some form of negotiation on the free license
issue. I warned them that the free licenses were not negotiable, but
they might think they can get an exemption. (The reduced resolution,
proper attribution and link stuff we can do, though.)

The legal issues, I think, would need to be explored by professionals.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l